Putting aside the dogmas of orthodox physics, there is an abundance of evidence that proves that free energy exists in direct contravention of the Law of Conservation of Energy.

Take for example the simple case of capillary action. A fluid rises up a capillary tube of its own accord as a result of the surface tension in the meniscus of the fluid. And yet no energy is expended by either the capillary tube or the fluid within the tube in raising the weight of fluid concerned.

But if work is done in raising the weight of fluid up the inside of the capillary tube, where does the energy come from? For the Law of the Conservation of Energy to apply energy must be drawn from a “reservoir” somewhere within the system of fluid/capillary tube and yet this clearly does not happen.

It is interesting to consider at this point that the Law of Conservation of Energy cannot in anyway be derived from first principles, it is merely an assumption. For the early physicists it was tempting to assume that such a principle applied and in many situations Conservation does seem to apply. However just because Conservation applies in some situations, it is not logical to assume that it must therefore apply in all situations encountered in the observable universe. Its much like stating the following, “Because all the swans I have ever seen are white, all swans must therefore be white.” Of course there is such a thing as a black swan which native to Australia.

Consider also an additional example: A large meteorite in outer space becomes captured by the Earth’s gravitational pull. It begins to hurtle towards the Earth and passing through its atmosphere its immense speed causes it to burn up and when eventually it strikes the ground it leaves a crater and causes a seismic shockwave which is felt for miles around.

It is obvious that the meteorite gained a significant amount of kinetic energy from the Earth’s gravitational pull and it was this energy in the form of velocity that caused it to burn up, cause a crater and create a seismic shockwave. But logic would dictate that if the Earth’s gravitational field gave energy to the meteorite surely an economy should be involved where the energy given to the meteorite should exactly equal what was lost by a central reservoir? However the Earth’s gravitational field does not lessen after such an event and neither does the Earth’s mass decrease. So where does the energy come from?

Classical physicists got around this problem by stating that before being captured by the Earth’s gravitational pull, the meteorite already possessed ‘potential energy’ which was simply converted into kinetic energy on the way down. But is this nothing more than a theoretical bodge?

Considering the evidence that free energy must exist in theory, how could we go about harnessing it for useful purposes? I am certain there must be many, many different ways of doing this, the only significant obstacle in the way is dogma. How many physics professors are there out there who are willing ‘to stick their head above the crowd’ and speak out on such an issue?

But surely the existence of a free energy which evidently permeates the entire universe is a golden opportunity for mankind who is now living on a polluted planet where the oil prices are spiralling ever higher and higher? Unfortunately it seems we live in a world where the leading economies are hopelessly addicted to oil and where government advisors are completely indoctrinated by outmoded and half-baked principles.

Wow, I havent seen misunderstanding of physics like that since my parents made me go to a Baptist elementary school.

Capillary action, though on the surface appearing to be spooky, is really quite simple. Water has very strong intermolecular attractions that come into play. This is why you have surface tension, and is the reason that water forms a meniscus. It is this intermolecular attraction that draws the liquid up the tube until it achieves equilibrium with the gravity pulling the liquid down. There may be a way to harness the energy of the molecular attraction, but it is a pretty tiny force all things considered. I doubt you will be driving a car on it anytime soon.

The meteorite problem is a bit thornier, give how it was presented. So maybe for the sake of clarity I should simply re-write the narrative the correct way. A meteorite that is caught in the Earth's gravity well certainly does receive quite a bit of a boost to its kinetic energy, but so does the Earth. Just to a lesser extent. Remember that the force exerted is the product of the two masses divided by the square of the distance between them. So while the meteorite gains energy due to gravitational acceleration, so too does the Earth, but to a far smaller degree owing to the far larger mass of the Earth. The energy isnt drained out of some reservoir like draining a battery, because gravitational attraction is a fundamental property of all matter. In fact, the Earth's gravity well becomes a tiny bit stronger after impact because the meteorite's mass is added to that of the Earth's.

Now we already do take advantage of gravity to provide huge amounts of power. In fact, most of Las Vegas is powered in such a manner. Its called hydro-electric. Dams make use of gravity to generate their power, and do it quite efficiently. Of course you have to get the water up there first, and nature provides this part. So really, even hydro-electric is actually solar powered.

Gravity can also be used in storing energy. The excess energy from solar cells can be used to pump water uphill behind a dam to be released later for power generation. Renewable energy companies have been doing this for years

Wow, I havent seen misunderstanding of physics like that since my parents made me go to a Baptist elementary school.

Capillary action, though on the surface appearing to be spooky, is really quite simple. Water has very strong intermolecular attractions that come into play. This is why you have surface tension, and is the reason that water forms a meniscus. It is this intermolecular attraction that draws the liquid up the tube until it achieves equilibrium with the gravity pulling the liquid down. There may be a way to harness the energy of the molecular attraction, but it is a pretty tiny force all things considered. I doubt you will be driving a car on it anytime soon.

The meteorite problem is a bit thornier, give how it was presented. So maybe for the sake of clarity I should simply re-write the narrative the correct way. A meteorite that is caught in the Earth's gravity well certainly does receive quite a bit of a boost to its kinetic energy, but so does the Earth. Just to a lesser extent. Remember that the force exerted is the product of the two masses divided by the square of the distance between them. So while the meteorite gains energy due to gravitational acceleration, so too does the Earth, but to a far smaller degree owing to the far larger mass of the Earth. The energy isnt drained out of some reservoir like draining a battery, because gravitational attraction is a fundamental property of all matter. In fact, the Earth's gravity well becomes a tiny bit stronger after impact because the meteorite's mass is added to that of the Earth's.

Now we already do take advantage of gravity to provide huge amounts of power. In fact, most of Las Vegas is powered in such a manner. Its called hydro-electric. Dams make use of gravity to generate their power, and do it quite efficiently. Of course you have to get the water up there first, and nature provides this part. So really, even hydro-electric is actually solar powered.

Gravity can also be used in storing energy. The excess energy from solar cells can be used to pump water uphill behind a dam to be released later for power generation. Renewable energy companies have been doing this for years

I think FallaciesAbound its a simple case of your not being able to see the wood for the trees.

Trying to blind us with pointless scientific detail isn't much use at all.

In the case of the capillary tube you still didn't explain where the energy reservoir came from or whether it could be depleted. In fact you didn't even DENY that free energy was possible in the example since you claimed it wasn't powerful enough to run a car on.

As for the gravity example, having the Earth accelerate as well just makes the situation worse. You now have twice as much energy to explain away. Presumably the Earth itself had 'potential energy' when it accelerated towards the meteorite?

Do you even bother to research a little to see if the question you asked can already be satisfactorily answered? I did explain where the energy comes from, but you missed it somehow. So.....

"The cohesive forces among the liquid molecules are responsible for this phenomenon of surface tension. In the bulk of the liquid, each molecule is pulled equally in every direction by neighboring liquid molecules, resulting in a net force of zero.The molecules at the surface do not have other like molecules on all sides of them and consequently they cohere more strongly to those directly associated with them on the surface. This attraction between molecules forms a surface "film" which makes it more difficult to move an object through the surface than to move it when it is completely submerged."
"Surface tension pulls the liquid column up until there is a sufficient mass of liquid for gravitational forces to overcome the intermolecular forces."

It is surface tension that causes the liquid to draw up the tube. There may be a way to harness this energy in some way, but it is a very tiny force which is only cabable of moving a few milliliters of water a few centimeters. IT does not seem likely that this will ever comprise any substantial power source.

As for your reservoir idea of energy....it doesnt really work that way with gravitation. Imagine I throw a baseball at a target. Chemical energy in my muscles is converted into kinetic energy to move my arm, and some of this energy is transferred to the ball. As the ball travels through the air, some of the energy is also transfered in the form of friction. Ultimately the ball strikes the target, and the original chemical energy has been converted to kinetic. This is where you are getting your "reservoir" idea, and it is perfectly accurate in this arena.

Gravity works a little differently. All matter distorts the fabric of spacetime and attracts all other matter. What determines the strength of the attraction is the mass of the objects and the distance between them. There is no conversion of energy really, so there is no "reservoir" to be depleted. Every atom of matter in the universe is constantly attracting every other bit of matter in the universe, simultaneously. This attraction causes an acceleration as two objects get closer and the force of gravity increases. This causes an apparent increase in the kinetic energy of the objects, but this is coming from the attraction itself and not the conversion of energy from one type to another. Since gravitational attraction is an essential property of all matter, there is no reservoir to drain or account for.

Do you even bother to research a little to see if the question you asked can already be satisfactorily answered? I did explain where the energy comes from, but you missed it somehow. So.....

"The cohesive forces among the liquid molecules are responsible for this phenomenon of surface tension. In the bulk of the liquid, each molecule is pulled equally in every direction by neighboring liquid molecules, resulting in a net force of zero.The molecules at the surface do not have other like molecules on all sides of them and consequently they cohere more strongly to those directly associated with them on the surface. This attraction between molecules forms a surface "film" which makes it more difficult to move an object through the surface than to move it when it is completely submerged."
"Surface tension pulls the liquid column up until there is a sufficient mass of liquid for gravitational forces to overcome the intermolecular forces."

It is surface tension that causes the liquid to draw up the tube. There may be a way to harness this energy in some way, but it is a very tiny force which is only cabable of moving a few milliliters of water a few centimeters. IT does not seem likely that this will ever comprise any substantial power source.

As for your reservoir idea of energy....it doesnt really work that way with gravitation. Imagine I throw a baseball at a target. Chemical energy in my muscles is converted into kinetic energy to move my arm, and some of this energy is transferred to the ball. As the ball travels through the air, some of the energy is also transfered in the form of friction. Ultimately the ball strikes the target, and the original chemical energy has been converted to kinetic. This is where you are getting your "reservoir" idea, and it is perfectly accurate in this arena.

Gravity works a little differently. All matter distorts the fabric of spacetime and attracts all other matter. What determines the strength of the attraction is the mass of the objects and the distance between them. There is no conversion of energy really, so there is no "reservoir" to be depleted. Every atom of matter in the universe is constantly attracting every other bit of matter in the universe, simultaneously. This attraction causes an acceleration as two objects get closer and the force of gravity increases. This causes an apparent increase in the kinetic energy of the objects, but this is coming from the attraction itself and not the conversion of energy from one type to another. Since gravitational attraction is an essential property of all matter, there is no reservoir to drain or account for.

A large oak tree uses capillary action to daily raise gallons of water to its leaves and yet the tree expends no energy at all in lifting this weight.

You say the energy comes from surface tension and attraction between molecules (which is self-evident) but the point is where does this energy come from if conservation is to apply?

The simple logic is therefore that this energy must come from a 'reservoir'.

You say gravity is curved spacetime but please don't forget this is just a theory which not necessarily everyone agrees with.

If there is no 'reservoir' from which the energy comes from in the case of gravity, doesn't this prove that free energy exists?